Look up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a
plane! No—it's … a
biomedical research Super PAC!

With researchers at pharmaceutical companies,
biotechnology
firms and academic institutions in this known galaxy scrambling for what
remains of government funding following the devastating effects
of the
sequester, an independent expenditure-only political action
committee—colloquially known as a "Super PAC"—is preparing to race to the
rescue.

Able to leap across the Congressional aisle in a single
bound, raise money for
research-friendly political candidates faster than a
speeding bullet and become a champion of the grant-seeking oppressed, First in
Science is coming to an industry conference near you to
inform you of its
cause.

That's what Jim Lantry, First in Science's founder and a
35-year veteran
of government and political campaigns, was doing when I caught
up with him this month as I worked on our ongoing coverage of the impact the
sequester
is having on funding for the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
(see "Sequester hits U.S. researchers hard," page 28). In fact, I first became
aware of Lantry's efforts earlier this year when I wrote our first
story about
the sequester, "2013: 'A bad year to have a good idea,'" and I researched
whether any Congressional officials had publicly addressed the $1.6 billion
loss the NIH is bracing to accommodate. But the few officials I have been
able
to locate and contact in the months since have very little to say about the
NIH's cuts, specifically, and in some cases, their staffs weren't
even aware of
their position on the issue.

This sounds like a job for First in Science, a new
Super PAC
that aims to increase research opportunity by organizing campaigns in support
of candidates seeking political office who pledge to support
government funding
for biomedical research.

Giving me a ring from the recent Federation of Clinical
Immunology Societies (FOCIS) conference in
Boston, Lantry explains how he came
to found First in Science. Working in both the private and public sectors as a
lobbyist and political consultant
for a wide range of industries, Lantry's
former client list boasts the likes of General Electric, Home Depot,
Exxon-Mobil, Dow Chemical, BP, Macy's,
UPS and Safeway Stores. But it wasn't
until last year, when Lantry met and married his Lois Lane—Dr. Linda Sherman,
an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.—that the
political needs
of the embattled biomedical research industry came to his
attention.

"I've watched my wife try to
write grants as her research
budget has gone down," Lantry says. "A lot of her colleagues are going to
Singapore, China, Korea, Australia and Europe.
This was before the sequester
even happened. When we got married last August, my social circle changed, and
I'd meet people at functions who would
always come up to me and want to discuss
the need for federal research funding. Inevitably, when someone finds out what
I do for a living, they point
their finger at you and say, 'this is a problem
with our government; you're a lobbyist, you should do something.'"

Lantry is of course aware of some of the controversy
surrounding Super PACs and doesn't shy away from it. On his way back home to La
Jolla, he jokes, "Super PACs are inherently different from political action
committees—I like to say that the difference is, Super PACs wear a cape.
"

"It used to be that PACs could give money to a candidate,
but there were strict limitations
on who the candidate could take money from or
how much he could accept," he says. "A candidate could only take $5,000 from an
individual. Obviously,
if you are running a campaign today, $5000 doesn't do
much. The average cost of a freshman campaign is $1.7 million."

With campaign finance laws becoming the Kryptonite of the
PAC process, a recent Supreme Court decision—Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission—held that "money is
free speech, and corporations are people," says Lantry, "and that decision
opened the door for
Super PACs."

The way Super PACs, including First in Science, work is that
a Super PAC can raise
"an unlimited amount of money to support a candidate's
campaign, as long as you do not coordinate with the campaign itself," Lantry
says. "So
essentially, you campaign side-by-side with the candidate, but you
don't coordinate any messages with the candidate."

First in Science's goal
is to raise $100 million to support
candidates seeking office in 50 different Congressional races who are either
pro-research or running against
"people who are either neutral on science, or
anti-science," says Lantry.

"We will ask these
candidates to sign a pledge to support
basic research funding and to bring that issue to the floor of Congress," he
says. "When that person gets
elected, they will have to take a firm position.
They can't go back on that position if they were elected on that issue. There
are two things
politicians want: money and votes. They want money so they can get
votes, and when we're talking about raising money to help get them into office,
they won't turn their backs on it. I'm not saying we're painting them into a
corner, but the people who voted for them who support investment in
research
will expect them to maintain that commitment."

Although First in Science's focus is on
strengthening
funding opportunities for biomedical research, "what we're really talking about
here is the future of the American economy," Lantry
says.

"If we don't invest in research like we have in the past,
our economy will continue to
deteriorate," he concludes. "There will never be a
way to balance the budget if we don't invest in things that give us the
potential for economic
return."

And with so much hanging on that balance, it will be
interesting to watch First in
Science in action. So forget about that new
Superman reboot, "Man of Steel," which is in theaters this summer, but my comic
book-geek friends tell me
isn't any good anyway. And pass the popcorn. Up, up
and away with you, Mr. Lantry.